Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (224296)	3/15/2007 12:28:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

(1A) Are there any FIXED military objectives to be reached? "You seem to believe the answer is yes. But then again, you mention that objectives have changed over the course of time. So it remains to be answered." Ahhhh I didn't realize you were using FIXED in the eternal sense of the word. The military objectives have clearly evolved and are likely to continue in that vein. "Are there fixed goals that once the military achieves them they can pull out? Or is this going to remain an open ended adventure at the pleasure of the President? President Bush's tenure is nearly finished so your open ended comment lacks context. <<<There will be an approach and a strategy that reflects not only the desire for the Iraqis to take more responsibility but the need for the Iraqis to step up,” a senior administration official familiar with the deliberations was quoted as saying. “This is not an open-ended commitment. We are putting real specific requirements and expectations on the Iraqi government.”>>> msnbc.msn.com <<<“The idea is to develop with the Iraqi government a series of benchmarks — oil, federalism, constitutional reform — there’s like 20 different things,” the president said, “and have that developed in a way that they’re comfortable with and we’re comfortable with.” Bush said benchmarks couldn’t be forced on Iraq — “It’s a sovereign government” — but the administration was doing everything it could to move the process along. “And when you say that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, they know you’re not going to abandon the central front in the war on terror? So they think, ‘Okay, well, we’ll wait a while.’“ “That’s that arc that [General George] Casey talks about, about how fast do you push, push them out without us, but if you push too fast, does it not achieve our objective,” the president answered. The U.S. simply couldn’t press beyond a certain point; there has to be a middle ground. “Part of the benchmark is precisely to create that sense of purpose for this government to have something to aim for,” Bush said. He expressed faith — again, this was in late October — that the Maliki government could get things done. “The whole purpose of the benchmarks, is to have — okay, you said you’re going to do this now, let’s start getting some decisions made.” >>> article.nationalreview.com

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (224296)	3/15/2007 12:32:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

(1B) What are the FIXED military objectives, if any. To this you seem to provide this answer from Bush“a government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror”. What the hell does that mean? If the Iraqis choose a government that is not interested in helping the US on its WOT then we'll be there forever and clobber them until they give in? And what does it mean for a government to be able to "defend" itself? Does it mean it will take on and remain in power forever? If in the next elections the Iraqis choose to have Muqtada al-Sadr form an Islamic government, will we come to the "defense" of the existing government? I doubt that it means what you have interpreted it to mean but I don't have access to the crystal ball you seem to be using, so I don't know for sure. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HOW THE HELL IS THAT ANSWER A MILITARY OBJECTIVE? IT INDICATES A POLITICAL GOAL NOT A MILITARY ONE. The president is commander and chief and the political executive of this country so when he declares such a goal it represents both, rather than one or the other.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (224296)	3/15/2007 12:35:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

(2)Are these objectives, if any, defined by politicians or by the military? This is a very simple question. Your answer, based on quoting Bush as the source of the objectives, seems to be a resounding NO. Now before you point out that Bush is the Commander, you should note that just the same he is a civilian politician and when we discuss military leadership, we are never considering the civilian command structure under which they serve as part of it. I consider Bush head of the military leadership and don't see a reason to separate that as you have.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (224296)	3/15/2007 12:37:38 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

(3) Once such objectives (assuming there are any) are reached, will we pull our forces out of Iraq? "Now this seems like an easy one to answer, don't you think? I mean assume hypothetically and next year Iraq is stable and the government can "defend" itself (whatever that means). And it is not hostile to the US. Will we then pull all our forces out or are we going to keep the bases there like so many that we have had around the world? HINT: Once a county has been defeated by US forces, there has NEVER been a case of them leaving the country. At least none that I know of. I would predict something similar to what we have seen at the end of previous military conflicts with attention to modern circumstances.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (224296)	3/15/2007 12:49:46 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

4) Are the answers to above questions predominantly political and devoid of any purely military objectives? You did not even attempt to answer this question, but I think it is obvious that they are all political objectives and answers rather military ones. We have a military force that is a service to the civilian government and to a major extent lead by the Political Administration. Which brings us back to your misguided bickering about "it would be according to military strategies rather than left vs right political ones". Explain to us how that could be possible? How can the determination of troop levels in Iraq exist outside of the political war within the US? That initial (left vs right) comment by me was in reference to partisan extrenism having its own goals, which are at times non-constructive due to the exploitive nature of extremism. Congress is otherwise an essential element to US military operations. An old example of how left vs right can be exploitatious could be understood, is through the system of common code speak associated with each. The left are 'peace freaks' ... that is code speak for the radical left that has a socialist agenda and could care less if Iraq desolved into genocidal civil conflict. The right are 'war hawks'... that is code speak for the radical right that doesn't care to engage in violent conflict themselves anymore that the average person does but has a monocultural ideal of society that is founded on judeo christian and anglo-saxon history. So when these left vs right extremists begin to exploit other problems in the world to push their disassociated agendas, they interfere with the kind of rational discourse that could constructively help to resolve modern problems, like troop levels in Iraq.